Complexity of avian evolution revealed by family-level genomes

Despite tremendous efforts in the past decades, relationships among main avian lineages remain heavily debated without a clear resolution. Discrepancies have been attributed to diversity of species sampled, phylogenetic method and the choice of genomic regions1–3. Here we address these issues by analysing the genomes of 363 bird species4 (218 taxonomic families, 92% of total). Using intergenic regions and coalescent methods, we present a well-supported tree but also a marked degree of discordance. The tree confirms that Neoaves experienced rapid radiation at or near the Cretaceous–Palaeogene boundary. Sufficient loci rather than extensive taxon sampling were more effective in resolving difficult nodes. Remaining recalcitrant nodes involve species that are a challenge to model due to either extreme DNA composition, variable substitution rates, incomplete lineage sorting or complex evolutionary events such as ancient hybridization. Assessment of the effects of different genomic partitions showed high heterogeneity across the genome. We discovered sharp increases in effective population size, substitution rates and relative brain size following the Cretaceous–Palaeogene extinction event, supporting the hypothesis that emerging ecological opportunities catalysed the diversification of modern birds. The resulting phylogenetic estimate offers fresh insights into the rapid radiation of modern birds and provides a taxon-rich backbone tree for future comparative studies.


Statistics
For all statistical analyses, confirm that the following items are present in the figure legend, table legend, main text, or Methods section.

n/a Confirmed
The exact sample size (n) for each experimental group/condition, given as a discrete number and unit of measurement A statement on whether measurements were taken from distinct samples or whether the same sample was measured repeatedly The statistical test(s) used AND whether they are one-or two-sided Only common tests should be described solely by name; describe more complex techniques in the Methods section.

A description of all covariates tested
A description of any assumptions or corrections, such as tests of normality and adjustment for multiple comparisons A full description of the statistical parameters including central tendency (e.g.means) or other basic estimates (e.g.regression coefficient) AND variation (e.g. standard deviation) or associated estimates of uncertainty (e.g.confidence intervals) For null hypothesis testing, the test statistic (e.g.F, t, r) with confidence intervals, effect sizes, degrees of freedom and P value noted Give P values as exact values whenever suitable.
For Bayesian analysis, information on the choice of priors and Markov chain Monte Carlo settings For hierarchical and complex designs, identification of the appropriate level for tests and full reporting of outcomes Estimates of effect sizes (e.g.Cohen's d, Pearson's r), indicating how they were calculated Our web collection on statistics for biologists contains articles on many of the points above.

Data analysis
All open source code and custom code used to analyze the data is described in detail with versions in the methods section.Specifically, we used DiscoVista and functions implemented in base R for statistical analysis.Plotting for figures was done in R with dependencies contained in the scripts deposited in the data repository at https://doi.org/10.17894/ucph.85624f66-c8e5-4b89-8e8a-fe984ca89e4a For manuscripts utilizing custom algorithms or software that are central to the research but not yet described in published literature, software must be made available to editors and reviewers.We strongly encourage code deposition in a community repository (e.g.GitHub).See the Nature Portfolio guidelines for submitting code & software for further information.

nature portfolio | reporting summary
April 2023

Randomization
Decisions on groupings were based on bioinformatic cutoffs, therefore randomization was not relevant.

Blinding
Decisions on groupings were based on bioinformatic cutoffs, therefore blinding was not relevant.Plants Did the study involve field work?We require information from authors about some types of materials, experimental systems and methods used in many studies.Here, indicate whether each material, system or method listed is relevant to your study.If you are not sure if a list item applies to your research, read the appropriate section before selecting a response.